Two of the links you removed were already active, so please dont remove them without cause. As for the inactive links, given the fact that two of their equals-in-context were already active, this gives me cause to assume that their creation at some point is indeed a possibility. After all, red links help Wikipedia grow. --Jamez1502 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that the article's talk page is a better place than mine for this discussion?

I disagree with your assessment of consensus, well actually since you didn't use consensus, I object to that. I would have waited for an administrative close but to be honest, I don't feel like bothering them about this at the moment. So I wanted to tell you upfront I do not believe you called that correctly and perhaps a non admin closing was a the best way to handle that dispute. Feel free to delete this, respond here or on my user page, but I have no immediate plans to dispute this further for the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the debate was long and unwieldy and apparently no one wanted to resolve the Gordian knot, so I decided to take it upon myself (and started a discussion at WT:AT to that effect, as the whole ‘Okina MOS is hopelessly tangled). You are correct that there is no consensus, but it was apparent, at least to me, that the actual title was the worst choice. Of course, you're free to disagree. No such user (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not to that point. Your thread and proposal gained no consensus where you say: "OK, I see your point – that quote marks of any kind are discouraged – and I agree with that part, so I'm striking my proposal as inadequate" it also has no bearing on the point. There was no consensus to change the article title regardless of your closing and move.

If anything, you're convincing me that the whole business is needlessly tangled. Regardless of my personal attitude whether ʻokina should be used in the article titles, it should not be grouped along with quotes and apostrophes in WP:AT. Just because it resembles one, it's not an apostrophe. As the article says, The ʻokina, [...] is a [...] letter (bold mine). I'm inclined to strongly agree with Kavebear and In ictu oculi that apostrophe is not an adequate replacement for an ʻokina under any circumstances, and thus Pa'u riders is not an appropriate encyclopedic title. Now, it's up to WP:HAWAII to decide, without unnecessary constraints from WP:AT, if it should be used or not in article titles and/or text, and I won't interfere with that. As I said in the closing statement, the quoted wording does not provide any guidance except to create redirects as appropriate (we knew that, thanks). No such user (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about WT:AT because there was no consensus there. You also don't understand who is arguing what and why. I am the one that requested Pa'u riders be changed to the okina to User:Fram because the apostrophe is being used as the okina and shouldn't. The other editor objected only because I objected to changing to the complete Hawaiian orthography and then made the Move Request suggesting numerous names but the one on the admin's talk page I was requesting. My request is based on spelling a group or organization's name. Also with the current title the "R" is not capitalized and changes the scope of the article. Now we are only talking about pau riding alone as a tradition and not the organizations and that's not the current scope of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@No such User thank you for the ping. I have no particular concern about the close other than you should amend the template to include the "non admin close" indication. @Mark Miller, I am generally sympathetic to use of correct fonts for all Latin-alphabet languages. I wish you luck with arriving at consensus at MOS Hawaii. There must be more than one article this affects. If it really is an issue then suggest come back in 6 months to Pau riders and revisit the RM. Best wishes to yourself and Kavebear and all those adding Hawaii content. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Okina is what should be there and MOS Hawaii did sort almost all this out and there appears to be a rough consensus on how to handle the situation. You are only interfering in that. The MOS Hawaii consensus states only that in cases where both diacritics are used, to use either or none. But in cases where it is the group/organization, person or place to use the their spelling but replace the apostrophe with the okina. This was just a bad closing and a move for the wrong reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

None of this was mentioned on the debate at the time I closed it (and I read it all). How was I supposed to know about it? In any case, the article was at Pa'u riders (with an apostrophe), which was clearly incorrect. Just now I saw (and I'm reading) the lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles. When and if that concludes with a clear outcome, feel free to speedy move Pau riders wherever it's suitable. My move should be understood as an interim measure, not as an ultimate decision. And the discussion at WT:AT is completely orthogonal to the whole issue. No such user (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clearly incorrect. It is the actual spelling used through out the modern day use of the organization but, consensus exists to treat all apostrophes in Hawaiian words as Okina and should be changed when found, because people don't have an okina button on their keyboards. How are you supposed to know it? You even bring up MOS Hawaii, I assumed you went to the talk page. Perhaps you just read the MOS itself. OK, that could have saved some time. As I said, I am not going to ask for it to be changed. If I have to, expanding the subject may be an option by forking. It is historic, and has reliable sources of a diverse nature. But, I do think the closing was not the best route.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been here a while now, Nsu, you should know better than to engage in frivolous edit wars over a couple of remarks that are indeed crass. If any AfD discussion is preventing you from keeping calm, you're doing it wrong :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should note also that it was a good idea to call someone - but at that point you should have just left it alone, or just reinstated your comment without the acrimonious phrasing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Joy, I ain't no saint, as you know, and I don't suffer fools gladly. Actually, I was quite restraintful, as I wrote down a few Corbett-style insults, but rephrased them before posting. Don't know about you, but some venting off at total assholes helps maintaining my mental health. Yep, I know a wikibreak would do as well, and I'm considering it. No such user (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't try to school me by putting these links to good-faith editing and so. Fyi, I've never wanted the discussion because there wasn't need for it. All the "oppose merge" comments are based on self-belief of how something should work, and not on reliable sources. That's why I-m "pushing" you to write good reasons for opposing, and all you who opposed merge gave a bunch of non-written rules of how it should look. This is the first time I've joined the discussion and I regret it. When I feel that something is not right (based on FACTS), as more as you continue to defend its "legacy", I will attack its disputed legacy even further. Loss is not an option. It could be an option if I was wrong. I'll be the first one who admit that I was wrong, but that is not a case here. The discussion will continue.--AirWolftalk 17:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the point with this your notice that I've made a good contribution to Serbian economy related articles? To soften my stance in future on this topic? If that's the case, then f*** it, I don't care.--AirWolftalk 17:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any words for what you wrote. Shame on you.--AirWolftalk 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of a discussion, I apologize if I've offended you. All my talk since I started with bad, "selfish" words in a really good manner, in order to try to direct you to facts and how it was done with other similar companies. Then, in my opinion, when I contested any of your previous talk, you've started to give another and another reason of why the articles shouldn't be merged. And each following reason was even fewer and fewer reasonable (in my opinon). Sorry, but I see such talk by intentional screwing (sorry for such expression). Again, I apologize you here and I'll revise my bad talk in discussion. Just like you've said: "It's just a fucking article on a fucking website." Have a nice day.--AirWolftalk 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the easy and comfortable quality/position of being cynical and witty :) it's still in the community's best interest that we try to avoid having these things escalate, so I've stepped in. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just keep pushing everyone's buttons, see how well that'll work for you :> seriously now, it usually helps if an uninvolved person intervenes. At the very least, we usually get some result. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reflexive verb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subject. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

OSX is at it again, this time on the Ford Escape page just reviewing his edit history, talk about pushy. Merges articles and then forces it to stick the Suzuki SX4 is yet another example I've found complete with insulting commentary.

That's how I always heard it, though I can't claim it with certainty. I wasn't aware that you had a source available. Still, I don't see any accents in HJP [2], probably because of the font: I see ⟨Šẉšak, Gojko⟩. You can hear a pronunciation by Denis Latin at [3], which matches mine. This one [4] is rather indeterminate to me(the speaker is from Zagreb which is not really a benchmark of prosody). OTOH, the one at [5] says /ʃǔːʃak/, which is also plausible. But to this native speaker, /ʃûːʃak/ sounds just wrong. No such user (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The prescribed variant is [gôːjko], as per HJP. The non-standard variant used in Zagreb doesn't have tones, it has stress and would be [ˈgojko]. 193.198.212.70 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected, although I've always heard that particular name (not Šušak's in particular) as /gǒːjko/ (and I do have a native grasp of tones). As for the surname, I still think HJP is wrong; I don't have time to find his own pronunciation though. His fellow Herzegovinians would get it right, just if we can find one. No such user (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, no wonder you weren't aware of the source - I didn't put it in the article due to my laziness. Anyway, your link provides the following transcription: ⟨Šȗšak⟩. I can see it just fine, but when I copy-paste it here, there's the same bug as in your transcription. The first name is transcribed here: [6] - they prescribe ⟨Gȏjko⟩. Try accessing these pages with Internet Explorer, it should display the Vukovian symbols properly. I must admit that in many cases I have a hard time hearing BCS tones, unless the speaker is from Bosnia or northern Serbia (Vojvodina). The indeterminate pronunciation to me sounds somewhat like [ˈgôjko ˈʃuːʃak] (falling and toneless, respectively), perhaps to be interpreted as [gôjko ʃǔːʃak]. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I must say I'm impressed anyway. I got that you're a trained phonetician, but still, for a foreigner to actually parse the tones requires quite a thin ear. No such user (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello once again. Does this pronunciation contain a stressed long vowel? To me, it definitely sounds longer than the unstressed ones, but then again - Handbook of the International Phonetic Association says that unstressed vowels are shorter than the stressed ones by 30% (in case of short vowels) and 50% (in case of long vowels). — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I was just curious about that particular word, but thanks for the links. The stressed vowel in Bosnian latice sounds a bit prolonged [ǎˑ], exactly as in case of Gradačac. But I know why I'm mishearing it: ⟨i⟩ (in case of "latice") and ⟨a⟩ (in case of Gradačac) are more schwa-like and shortened, somewhat like [ɘ̆] and [ɜ̆], respectively. That gives the illusion of the stressed vowel preceding these unstressed vowels being long. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduction of post-accented vowels is, of course, pretty normal. It is especially audible in informal speech in Bosnia, particularly with /i/. There's even a joke: "Which Bosnian word has two consecutive /n/s ? Answer: slǎnna" (it's much worse than on that Forvo recording)No such user (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Could you tell me how Arnej Šećerkadić is pronounced? According to HJP, the surname is pronounced [ʃětɕerkaditɕ], but what about the first name? All I know is that the stress is on the first syllable, but what about the tones and the vowel length? Peter238 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You are not an administrator and therefore have no right to shut down an ANI discussion using the {archive} template as you did in this edit. Impersonating an administrator is an instantly blockable action. You are permitted to make a non administrator collapse of off topic discussions using the {cot} template, but that is not the case here. In particular, your grounds are erroneous. Had you bothered to read the complaint, you would see that is addressing a long standing behavioural issue from an established tendentious editor which has been the subject of a previous RfC. There are inevitably content issues discussed but these are, in general, discussed as symptoms of the main issues being discussed. Any attempt at primarily discussing content and not the ANI complaint has been either flagged (and withdrawn) or collapsed. Thank you. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I do have the right as an uninvolved editor in good standing. Your reaction that "impersonating an administrator is an instantly blockable action" is quite inappropriate, as I clearly declared NAC in the closure. Having sufficient experience with threads like this one on ANI, I see 1) a content dispute no administrator is going to tackle and 2) a long-standing issue with Wtshymanski (that I'm aware of) for which the ANI is exactly the wrong kind of venue (and which is no administrator going to tackle, again), so I tried to cut the fruitless bickering. Has anybody tried talking with Wtshymanski, for the start? No such user (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Has anybody tried talking with Wtshymanski...?". Oh God yes. I've tried. Many others have tried (there is a fair list in the RfC). As everyone who has tried has discovered it is a total waste of time. Wtshymanski is right and everyone else wrong (which is a fundamental plank of the ANI). Any attempt at discussing anything is met with a completely standard response as here, and here (Deliberately found two examples from other than myself. In particular note the sarcastic edit summariess attached.) The admins are well aware of all this so let's wait and see what they say. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you right away: they'll say nothing, but feel free to rest hopeful. I am aware that Wtshymanski is difficult to work with, to put it mildly, but in this particular content dispute nobody really tried to: Talk:Ladder logic is still blank. He's probably guilty about edit warring, just as the IP, and wrong about the tag, but if all the energy on edit-warring with him, then opening an ANI, then edit-warring with me on meta-issues had been spent on a talk page clarification, we'd all be happier and the article better. ANI is not a recommended step in the WP:DR, and it sucks at that anyway. No such user (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Still not read the ANI? Read it again and you will discover that I did not open it. Further, I am not involved in this particular edit war (and have no evidence as to the correctness either way) so there is no obligation on me to discuss anything anywhere else. As to whether the OP comes out of this smelling of roses: that is another matter. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I've read it the first time. All of it. On one hand, the IP deserves a WP:BOOMERANG (and he doesn't seem like a newbie at all). On the other, your and Guy Macon's concerns about Wtsh were nicely put alright, but ANI is a forum designed for incidents, not for addressing long-term dickishness, particularly of good-faith kind as displayed by Wtsh. He hasn't done anything approaching blockable in this instance. So ask yourself: what do you expect as an outcome of that ANI? An administrator will come and do what to Wtsh?
So, if he's not going to be blocked, you'll have to deal with him, sorry. I've encountered him on few engineering articles but didn't have much contact: seems like a guy with heart in the right place, but with suboptimal communication skills. But he's not unreasonable (or at least, in this particular incident he's not to blame any more than the IP). No such user (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Three votes is a bit thin to change a longstanding consensus. Do you want advertise the current discussion more widely or try a request for comment? Perhaps we could just wait for a few more votes and then ask an admin to close the discussion. NotUnusual (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NotUnusual: It's just started, so I'd expect a few more people to show up; normally those interested in MOS and/or MOS:JA. Such informal discussions really shouldn't need an admin to close, per WP:BURO. I'm a bit frustrated with the bureaucratic stalemate, but it's not unusualpun intended :) for Wikipedia: everybody agrees that the current situation is awful but since we cannot agree what should be done, nothing gets done. Oh well. No such user (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor Radojicic lives in Bosnia, but is declared as a Montenegrin. Family Radojicic originating from the same named village near Grahovo in the municipality of Niksic. Niksic is the second biggest city in Montenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamlinkoln (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Filip Vujanovic was born in Belgrade, but his family is from Niksic-Montenrego. He finished elementary and high school in Niksic. His father was a famous lawyer in Belgrade and Niksic and his mother was the first women surgeon in Niksic and Montenegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamlinkoln (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Abrahamlinkoln: Maybe. But I took care to review all your recent contributions, investigated a bit on my own, and concluded that your criterion for "being from Nikšić" is way too loose. Not everyone whose family member passed near Nikšić should be included, and besides, at least some proof is required. Vujanović's article does not mention Nikšić in a single word. Same for Radojičić. Even if what you say is true, these persons' connections with the city is fairly weak (for Vujanović it's borderline, but Radojičić really doesn't qualify). No such user (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've received notification that you have removed the template I placed and added a source. The reason I placed the template was not about the groupings directly below the template, but the other stuff later on in the section such as "If it were not for the 40 km of coastline...." and "If Transnistria is included then..." It sounds a bit too much like trivia to me. I thought that placing the template under the list of countries was the least obtrusive place for it. But did I use the wrong template? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I think we should remove the anchor {{Anchor|Pitch accent}} in Serbo-Croatian phonology, and instead add an HTML comment noting that the section name should not be changed, and why. I prefer not to have an anchor for two reasons: it's redundant and it shows up in edit summaries. And adding an HTML comment is better, because unlike adding Template:Anchor, it explains why the section name has to remain the same, and will not confuse editors, as it has confused me. Let me know what you think. — Eru·tuon 20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right about edit summaries, so I usually put the anchor in the following line after heading. I prefer anchors to HTML comments, as they're sort of self-documenting, but YMMV, so whatever, it's really not a big deal. No such user (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I take your comment as indicating you're okay with the change, so I switched the anchor for an HTML comment. The comment may need clearer wording, but hopefully it's clear enough that if anyone makes the change, someone will revert them. — Eru·tuon 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice work! It's good to see this article; she looks to have been an interesting person. If you find a source for her date of death, please let me know. IPNI could usefully be updated with this information. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was inspired by your work, and I got intrigued what I've read about her in the sources. However, no luck for the DoD -- I searched the internet thoroughly but without luck; she's only referred to as "not having been with us for several years" in a 2001 source, but without any details. The 2000 is given in es:Olga Mizguiriova but it's uncited. No such user (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that in the Spanish version, but as you say sadly with no source. So I think that, for now, the DoD should be removed from the List of botanists by author abbreviation, since this is sourced to IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hoping that your question wasn't rhetorical, I want to reply: Yes.
See, by working together instead of against eachother, we progress. The new map with the motorways is definitely better than the other. --Tëfcí (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was half-rhetorical. And I agree with you: rational people can make things better even when they disagree. Unfortunately, there's general shortage of rational people.
On the other hand, I wish it was somebody else who had to search for those maps... No such user (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Camille Muffat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

There is some confusion regarding the term in the literature. I'll create the article Proto-Slavic iotation during the weekend, and expand the main article regarding the iotation in Serbo-Croatian from both synchronic and diachronic perspective. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I appealed my topic ban (diff). Taking in consideration that we were involved in disputes in past and that you supported my ban and/or was against its lifting I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)